>I agree. There are some different designs for Z-mount that >have a wider rear element. That provides for less vignetting >and better edges. But as far as the flange distance is >concerned, I don't think it matters for long lenses.
What's interesting about Sony's 400, and I still do not quite understand it, is somehow they worked the physical structure so the weight is far more centered despite the huge front element, while remaining light. This lets it feel much better with the lighter body mounted (even with a grip mirrorless are naturally lighter because you lose all that mirror mechanism, mechanical focus and mechanical aperture mechanisms, and the increased box width to hold them). The overall system is pretty centered on the foot, back near the camera.
One thing Nikon has to come to grips with (pun intended) if it surplants the D7 with a Z something and kills off the D line, is how size gets handled. Most Dn users, I think, like the format, the large body, and are comfortable with big, front heavy lenses. They go well together. Sony paid only small attention to that (not enough IMO) with an add-on grip -- it still feels a bit small and thin, though I got used to it. But when mated with the better balance of the 400, the lighter body is not so annoying and really nice for field use. But the body SHOULD have had an integrated grip, and use that space for more memory, better cards, etc.
How will Nikon migrate its large, heavy body users to a new format and make them comfortable with it. Will they do an integrated, large body grip, or something you screw on? Also, this is definitely an argument for a new line of super-teles, redesigned with more centered weight (and lighter weight of course). Otherwise they are going to seem like a really, really heavy dog with a little bitty tail wagging. Shortening the distance from the last element to the flange would help with that weight distribution, breaking it for use on the F body of course.
>have a wider rear element. That provides for less vignetting
>and better edges. But as far as the flange distance is
>concerned, I don't think it matters for long lenses.
What's interesting about Sony's 400, and I still do not quite understand it, is somehow they worked the physical structure so the weight is far more centered despite the huge front element, while remaining light. This lets it feel much better with the lighter body mounted (even with a grip mirrorless are naturally lighter because you lose all that mirror mechanism, mechanical focus and mechanical aperture mechanisms, and the increased box width to hold them). The overall system is pretty centered on the foot, back near the camera.
One thing Nikon has to come to grips with (pun intended) if it surplants the D7 with a Z something and kills off the D line, is how size gets handled. Most Dn users, I think, like the format, the large body, and are comfortable with big, front heavy lenses. They go well together. Sony paid only small attention to that (not enough IMO) with an add-on grip -- it still feels a bit small and thin, though I got used to it. But when mated with the better balance of the 400, the lighter body is not so annoying and really nice for field use. But the body SHOULD have had an integrated grip, and use that space for more memory, better cards, etc.
How will Nikon migrate its large, heavy body users to a new format and make them comfortable with it. Will they do an integrated, large body grip, or something you screw on? Also, this is definitely an argument for a new line of super-teles, redesigned with more centered weight (and lighter weight of course). Otherwise they are going to seem like a really, really heavy dog with a little bitty tail wagging. Shortening the distance from the last element to the flange would help with that weight distribution, breaking it for use on the F body of course.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com